Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#961

Post by robertlagrant »

justinclift wrote: post #931
marcusverus wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure businesses will capture some of the value, but is there any reason to assume they'll capture all or even most of it? Over the last ~ 50 years, worker productivity is up ~250%[0], profits (within the S&P 500) are up ~100%[1] and real personal (not household) income is up 150%[2]. It should go without saying that a large part of the rise in profits is attributable to the rise of tech. It shouldn't surprise any…

> The higher your margins, the more attractive your market becomes to would-be competitors. Only in very simplistic theory. :( In practical terms, businesses with high margins seem able to afford government protection (aka "buy some politicians"). So they lock out competition, and with their market captured, price gouging (or close to it) is the order of the day. No real sure why anyone thinks the playbook would be a…

This is also pretty simplistic. All the progress that's made on a variety of fronts implies that we don't have loads of static lockin businesses that bribe bureaucrats.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#962

Post by robertlagrant »

brandall10 wrote: post #942
flashgordon wrote: post #922

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing I am struggling with. I agree things will exponentially improve with AI. What i am not seeing is who will actually capture the value. Or rather how will those other than rich and powerful get to partake in this value capture. Take viable commercial fusion for example. Best case it ends up looking like another PG&E. Worst case it is owned by yet another Musk like gatekeeper. How do you see this being…

The most rosy outcome would be benevolent state actors control it, and the value capture is simply for everyone as the costs for everything go to zero (food, energy, housing, etc). It would be post-capitalist, post-consumer. Of course the problem is whether or not it could be controlled, and in that case, the best hope is simply 'it' being benevolent and naturally incentivized to create such a utopia.

Why would the cost of housing go to zero?

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#963

Post by kmeisthax »

eru wrote: post #943
kmeisthax wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they refuse the contract then they lose out on their options vesting. Basically, OpenAI's contracts work like this: Employment Contract the First: We are paying you (WAGE) for your labor. In addition you also will be paid (OPTIONS) that, after a vesting period, will pay you a lot of money. If you terminate this employment your options are null and void unless you sign Employment Contract the Second. Employment Con…

Btw, do you have any idea whey they even bother with the second contract? Couldn't they just write the same stuff into the first contract in the first place?

Because people might actually object to it if it was in the first contract.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#964

Post by kmeisthax »

pawelmurias wrote: post #643
kmeisthax wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to think the relatives of South African emerald mine owners might not be the best people to trust...

You are not responsible for the sins of your father regardless of how seriously fucked in the head he is.

This is a great sentiment in theory. But it assumes that the child is actually interested in rejecting those sins - and accepting the economic consequences of equality (e.g. them not being filthy stinking rich).

In practice most rich people spoil the shit out of their kids and they wind up being even more fucked in the head than their parents.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#965

Post by diebeforei485 »

season2episode3 wrote: post #919
diebeforei485 wrote: post #411

> For workers at startups like OpenAI, equity is a vital form of compensation, one that can dwarf the salary they make. Threatening that potentially life-changing money is a very effective way to keep former employees quiet. Yes, but: (1) OpenAI salaries are not low like early stage startup salaries. Essentially these are highly paid jobs (high salary and high equity) that require an NDA. (2) Apple has also clawed ba…

Source on #2?

Please read Apple's Employee Stock Plan Agreement, in particular Section 9.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/0001193125220...

It has happened in several cases involving leakers, most recently the Andrew Aude case.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#966

Post by danielmarkbruce »

hnfong wrote: post #958
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two people entering an agreement to not talk about something is fine. You and I should (and can, with very few restrictions) be able to agree that I'll do x, and you'll do y and we are going to keep the matter private. Anyone who wants to take away this ability for two people to do such a thing needs to take a long hard look at themselves, and maybe move to north korea.

There are things that are legal between parties of (presumed) equal footing, that aren't legal between employers and employees. That's why you can pay $1 to buy a gadget made in some third world country, but you can't pay your employees less than say $8/hour due to minimum wage laws.

Yes, as noted there are a few exceptions.

Being paid a whole lot of money to not talk about something isn't remotely similar to paying someone a few dollars an hour. It's not morally similar, it's not legally similar and it's not treated similarly by anyone who deals with these matters and has a clue what they are doing.

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#967

Post by justinclift »

robertlagrant wrote: post #961
justinclift wrote: post #931

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The higher your margins, the more attractive your market becomes to would-be competitors. Only in very simplistic theory. :( In practical terms, businesses with high margins seem able to afford government protection (aka "buy some politicians"). So they lock out competition, and with their market captured, price gouging (or close to it) is the order of the day. No real sure why anyone thinks the playbook would be a…

This is also pretty simplistic. All the progress that's made on a variety of fronts implies that we don't have loads of static lockin businesses that bribe bureaucrats.

The ones controlling AI these days seem to be of that type though. :(

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#968

Post by loceng »

awesomeMilou wrote: post #959
loceng wrote: post #893

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The climate models aren't based on accurate data, nor enough data, so they lack integrity and should be taken with a grain of salt. Likewise, the cloud seeding they seem to be doing nearly worldwide now - the cloud formations from whatever they're spraying - are artificially changing weather patterns, and so a lot of the weather "anomalies" or unexpected-unusual weather-temperatures could very easily be because of th…

> The climate models aren't based on accurate data I'm sorry, do you have a source for that claim? You seem to dismiss the video without any evidence.

My other comment will link you to plenty of resources: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40378842

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#969

Post by KeplerBoy »

ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #916
MOARDONGZPLZ wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consent isn’t legally required. An admission, however, would upset a lot of extremely online people though. Seems lose lose.

"Consent isn't legally required"? I don't understand this point. If Google gave the data to OpenAI (which they surely haven't, right?), even then they'd not have consent from users. As far as I understand it, it's not a given that there is no copyright infringement here. I don't think even criminal copyright infringement is off the table here, because it's clear it's for profit, it's clear it's wilful under 17 U.S.C.…

What's the current situation on this? Do you waive the rights for AI training (presumably by Alphabet) when you upload content to YouTube?

Re: OpenAI departures: Why can’t former employees talk?

#970

Post by kmeisthax »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #509
rcbdev wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI is outputting the partially copyright-infringing works of their LLM for profit. How does that square?

You raise an interesting point. If more professional lawyers agreed with you, then why have we not seen a lawsuit from publishers against OpenAI?

There are some lawsuits, especially in the very reflexively copyright-pilled industries. However, a good chunk of publishers aren't suing for self-interested reasons. There's a lot of people in the creative industry who see a machine that can cut artists out of the copyright bargain completely and are shouting "omg piracy is based now" because LLMs can spit out content faster and for free.
Post reply on HN